alternative distinctly presented to the free States either to admit Texas into the Union, or to procced calmly and peaceably to arrange the terms of a dissolution of the Union."

Similar resolutions were adopted in different Southern States, and the common toast, "Texas or disunion," showed that the seeds which Calhoun had so industriously sown were beginning to bear fruit, in "forcing the issue" on the North.

But this policy was not by any means universal. A disunion meeting having been called at Richmond, Virginia, the editor of the Enquirer, Mr. Ritchie, repulsed the idea, saying: "There is not a Democrat in Virginia who will encourage any plot to dissolve the Union."

Nashville, Tennessce, the home of Gencral Jackson, was equally emphatic, the citizens of which place protested against the "desecration of the soil of Tennessee, by having any convention held there to hatch treason against the Union."

Nor was the expression of disunion sentiments confined to South Carolina. Massachusetts, not to be outdone in this direction, and incited thereto by the same pretext-the annexation of Texasmade a similar threat by resolution of its Legislature in the same year, 1844.

She resolved, "that the project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may drive these Statcs into a dissolution of the

Union." The following extract from an address in 1843 signed by J. Q. Adams, Joshua Giddings and cleven other Congressmen is to the same effect:

"We hesitate not to say that annexation (of Texas) would be identical with dissolution. It would be a violation of our national compact, so injurious to the wishes and feelings of the people of the free States, as in our opinion, not only to result inevitably in a dissolution of the Union, but fully to justify it."

But to return to our narrative of events. The Democratic National Convention of 1844, in which, as usual, South Carolina was unrepresented, nominated James K. Polk for President, who, after an exciting contest with Henry Clay, was elected. The annexation of Texas, which the Tyler administration had favored and partially accomplished, was soon afterwards completed, and was soon followed by the war with Mexico. These measures-leaving the slavery question out-were unqucstionably founded upon just principles; for Texas was practically independent of Mexico, no attempt having been, for some years, made for its subjugation; and its geographical position naturally made its annexation to the United States desirable. And it should be remembered that the territory of which Texas was a portion, had been ceded to us by France in the Louisiana purchase, and had only reverted to Spain through the ignor

ance or apathy of J. Q. Adams when Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe in 1819, who, in arranging the treaty with the latter country, had, it was charged at the time, made the Sabine instead of the Nueces river our Southwestern boundary."

It has also been claimed that the annexation. was precipitated by Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of State, while peace proposals were being considered by Texas and Mexico, and that a delay of a few months would have rendered that measure possible without the Mexican war, and that Mr. Calhoun hurried the business for effect on the Presidential election then about to take place. This position is confirmed by the following extract of a letter addressed to Mr. Upshur, then Secretary of State, and a strong partisan of Calhoun's, by the Texas Commissioners:

"It is known to you that an armistice exists between Mexico and Texas, and that negotiations for peace are now going on under the mediation of two powerful sovereigns (England and France), mutually friendly. If we yield to your solicitation to be annexed to the United States under these circumstances, we shall draw upon ourselves a fresh invasion from Mexico, incur the imputation of bad faith, and lose the friend

*Mr. Adams has been relieved from the responsibility of this boundary line by the production of a letter, showing that he acted in accordance with instructions from Mr. Monroe and his Cabinet.

ship and respect of the two great mediatory powers. Now, will you, in the event of our acceding to your request, step between us and Mexico and take the war off our hands?"

Mr. Upshur's death, by the explosion of a gun on board the United States steamer Princeton, having occurred, Mr. Calhoun, who succeeded him, gave the pledge to the full extent asked for. An examination of the words italicised reveals the fact that the first overtures for annexation had come from the Southern Radicals represented in Mr. Tyler's Cabinet, and was really an effort on the part of the Calhoun party to preserve for slavery the balance of power in the Union.

From this statement of facts, the attentive reader will readily perceive that the annexation of Texas was really a measure of this mongrel administration of Tyler's, and was not instituted, as is asserted ly many historians, by the Democratic party. For the Calhoun faction, which occasionally acted with the Democratic party, are more to be considered as belonging to it than are the Free Soil Democrats who, under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, left the party in 1852 and set up a different organization.

• no

Mr. Polk's inaugural address-1845-dwelt at considerable length upon the advantages and blessings of the Union, and of the necessity for its preservation, and may be taken as the universal sentiment of the party at that time. But

he offered Mr. Calhoun a place in his Cabinet, which he declined, he (Calhoun) at the time expressing strong Union sentiments. And it should be remembered, that although Mr. Calhoun had become the cspecial leader of the slavery party, which he sought to strengthen in every possible way, even to the destruction of the Democratic party, if that were deemed necessary for the preservation of slavery, yet he had not committed any overt act, and most of his letters go to show that he did not think that disunion, the last resort, would ever become necessary. And the last public act of his life was the suggestion, in his last speech in the Senate, of a compromise amendment to the Constitution whereby, he supposed, the Union might be preserved.

And now, if the expression of disunion sentiments merited the rope, how would Wendell Phillips, J. Q. Adams and Joshua Giddings have afterwards fared?

The Mexican war, whether just or not in its inception, resulted in unmixed good to our country, followed as it was by the acquisition of California and New Mexico, for which, by the terms of the treaty, fifteen millions of dollars were paid.

The era of slavery was not extended, as, that institution was recognized in Texas before annexation. Indeed, if anything, it was somewhat limited, as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had